• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

Jerry... i commented on what the police said, not the video,...St. Paul police Chief Tom Smith says officers became violent with Lollie because they "believed he might either run or fight with them
Its good that you realize your mistake.

Its clear to me that he was about to fight or flee. I don't know why you can't see that. Is the shade of his skin blocking your view?
 
Watch the video, he made the accusation "its because I'm black". In truth, its because he was trespassing. It's one thing to accidently be in a private area when there was no sign, but its quite another to refuse to leave after security asks.

I agree, he was in the wrong. In this situation however your explanation of black privilege just does not fit. If you had said he was trying to play the race card, that I could agree with. The whole "black privilege" thing is a bad assumption on your part. Do you know what race the security guards were? Even if you did it would not change the fact he made the comment to one white police officer and that was it. It may have just been out of frustration, anger or any number of things.

You are making assumptions based on one statement of the entire exchange. Playing the race card? Yea, I can see that. Black privilege? New Stormfront catch phrase? Yes, I can see that as well.
 
When those tazer probs penatrate your skin you be sure to tell the electric shock it has no authoritah over you. Let us know how it works out, with a video if you can :)

Like I said, people that want other people to respect their authority will commonly resort to violence when they can't get their way.
 
Last edited:
Its good that you realize your mistake.

Its clear to me that he was about to fight or flee. I don't know why you can't see that. Is the shade of his skin blocking your view?

And there is another bigoted statement. His color has nothing to do with his opinion on what happened.
 
The public owns my local court house. I for one apreciate the public being kept out of the will vault.

Public use =/= public access.

Actually, ownership equals access and use.
 
well no i didn't make any mistake.....i clearly post what the cops said......i did not make a comment of any video...i was very clear.

your a good guy Jerry....dont do a haymarket,

As I just said, it's clear to me that he was about to fight or flee. I don't know why you can't see that. He was going to be arrested for trespassing and only made it worse on himself.
 
Like I said, people that wants other people to respect their authority will commonly resort to violence when they can't get their way.
But the get their way...through violance, the only authority which actualy exists at all.
 
As I just said, it's clear to me that he was about to fight or flee. I don't know why you can't see that. He was going to be arrested for trespassing and only made it worse on himself.

How can you trespass on your own property?
 
As I just said, it's clear to me that he was about to fight or flee. I don't know why you can't see that. He was going to be arrested for trespassing and only made it worse on himself.

Jerry again i didnt watch the video..i commented on what the cops said........now imagine your in a police station [watching] and a cop brings in a prisoner to be booked, he all bloody and bruised, can hardly stand and needs to see a doctor.....when asked why he is in the shape he is in, the cop says, i had to beat him with my nightstick,, because i thought he was going to fight me.

this would give cops free license to beat people, saying they just felt threaten...is the point i am making....people have to be given the benifit of the doubt, that is way law works.
 
But the get their way...through violance, the only authority which actualy exists at all.

You want to have authority over people by agreement, not through violence. Relying on violence to make people follow your will isn't a great idea in the long run.

Appointing yourself authority over someone else isn't really authority anyway, but self deluded bull****.
 
Because if your talk here is any indication of your actual behavior when coming in contact with police it's easy to see them rightfully tasing you.

Yes, because it's written in the Constitution that cops can tase anybody that doesn't kiss their ass. God, we are a nation of sheep!
 
Well, this is turning into a race war, so before the derail is irreparably complete, let me just add the following:

The citizen repeatedly said he did not know he was in a private area, and repeatedly asked where the signs designating it as a private area were located. He received no answer.

He repeatedly told the police he was just there to pick up his children, so the police were aware that if they assaulted/tazed him, his children would likely see it happen, and if they dragged him to the police station, his children would be left alone in the group of strange adults milling around, putting them in danger as well as having traumatized him by seeing their father tazed.

The "crimes" he committed were clearly so heinous and the evidence against him was so overwhelming that the charges were dropped almost immediately.

As I've said, in this case I'm on the citizen's side despite the fact that his own behavior was less than appropriate for the situation.
 
If he refuses to cooperate with the investigation they can take him in. It's called "obstruction" and every state I know of has a statute covering it.

Your attitude is part of the problem. What investigation? The fact that he was sitting at a mall is reason to have an investigation? Oh, and this BS about obstruction. It is a BS charge that cops use to arrest someone when they have done nothing wrong. I witnessed a man being arrested at a bar. His buddy, unaware of this, coming out of the restroom ask what was going on. This dickhead cop turned to him and said, "You're under arrest." When asked what the charge was the cop said obstruction.

You were a cop, right?
 
Just to note, he was not in a public area, he was in a restricted area of a public building.

Well, I guess they should have shot him then. They are good at that also!

If this was a private area, why not ask the man to move and let that be it?
 
Sure, but he didn't feel like helping them. All he wanted to do was wait for child and be left alone. That is it.

Don't you know? You only have the right to be left alone when the cops allow you to be left alone.
 
How can you trespass on your own property?
When you've given controle of it to someone else and they ask you to leave.

Not to draw to many comparisons to private land, but a tenant can have a landlord arested for trespassing in many scenarios eventhough the landord owns the property, because the landlord rents out control of the land and thus retains little controle.

I don't own my car yet, still paying it off, but because I have been given controle of it if the dealer jumps in without my permission that is trespassing if not an atempted car-jack. Same thing when you rent a car.

Just because you own something doesn't mean you controle it or have access to it.

The public owns the building but we do not control it.
 
Last edited:
You want to have authority over people by agreement, not through violence. Relying on violence to make people follow your will isn't a great idea in the long run.

Appointing yourself authority over someone else isn't really authority anyway, but self deluded bull****.
Cops don't appoint themselves, and all the pretty words of agrement are just a mutual decision on when to use violence.
 
Watch the video. Get all the information.


again ..i am not speaking of the video, i am speaking of what the cops said....and what they said..... is wrong......you cannot beat people because you think they may fight you.

the benefit of the doubt....is the way law works
 
Well, I guess they should have shot him then. They are good at that also!

If this was a private area, why not ask the man to move and let that be it?
He was asked to move on. 3 times. By security. Only after refusing to leave were the police called.
 
Cops don't appoint themselves, and all the pretty words of agrement are just a mutual decision on when to use violence.

They get hired as a police officer by other unelected individuals. If it was mutual it would mean I was involved and agreed, but I wasn't involved and I didn't agree.
 
They get hired as a police officer by other unelected individuals. If it was mutual it would mean I was involved and agreed, but I wasn't involved and I didn't agree.

Not sure if serious.

Wait, are you the member that denies the Social Contract?
 
As I just said, it's clear to me that he was about to fight or flee. I don't know why you can't see that. He was going to be arrested for trespassing and only made it worse on himself.

The police state mentality goes well with the military. It's there biggest drawback, the inability to think independently.
 
When you've given controle of it to someone else and they ask you to leave. Not to draw to many comparisons to private land, but a tenant can have a landlord arested for trespassing in many scenarios eventhough the landord owns the property, because the landlord rents out control of the land and thus retains little controle. I don't own my car yet, still paying it off, bit because I have been given controle of it if the dealer jumps in without my permission that is trespassing if not an atempted car-jack. Same thing when you rent a car.

Just because you own something doesn't mean you controle it or have access to it.

The public owns the building but we do not control it.

Control = ownership. The whole premise of public property is actually flawed for a few different reasons. One of those reasons is that if the government controls the property they are the owner of the property and everyone else is only given permission to use their property at their behest. The fact is "public property" is something that only exists on paper, because in reality all property is private.
 
Back
Top Bottom